The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was unaware of the fact that he did not instruct an employee E of the instant marina business establishment to engage in a similar act, and did not know that E did a similar act.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to guilty.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant operated the instant marina business by allowing employees of the instant marina business to act similar to customers explicitly or implicitly.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

① Employees E talked that “Although the Defendant did not specifically talk about the services to be provided to customers, there was a 70,000 won, 10,000 won, and 150,000 foot services.” From 100,000 won to 100,000 won or more, employees E talk to the extent that there was a Handbling service (i.e., a man’s sexual organ).”

“,” for a police officer who disguisedly pretended to customers, “100 foot Mabbs for one hour,” and where customers desire, Handblings shall also be carried.

“.” The above proposal is in accordance with the Defendant’s order, the president of the business place.

The term "(92, 93 pages of Evidence Records)" is specifically stating the background and contents of the defendant's instruction of similarity.

② F, a control police officer, obtained a intelligence in the court of the court below to take place sexual traffic at the same marina business place, enter a disguised customer, and asked employees G about the place and service contents. It is only possible to talk in a carbr and talk with Acs.